Re: Frequent false reports: where's the evidence? (was: Re: Rape Education Story #60

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kate Orman) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Waldo Weaver) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kate Orman) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > 
> > > To date I have seen no good evidence that fake reports (let alone 
> > > fake accusations, trials, or convictions) are an overwhelming problem 
> > > and that victims should therefore be treated with automatic suspicion. 
> > 
> >  Your logic goes like this: "No one has proved women lie frequently
> > about rape. Therefore, they don't. "
> 
> My logic goes like this: "There is no evidence that a large proportion 
> of rape reports are false. Therefore, there is no reason to believe
> that a large proportion of rape reports are false." (Apologies to 
> Bertrand Russell. :-)

That logic also goes through this way: "There is no evidence that a
large proportion of rape reports are true. Therefore, there is no
reason to believe that a large proportion of rape reports are true."

What evidence do you have that a large proportion of rape reports are
true? If there is hard evidence that  those rapes happened, then why
the low conviction rate? Of course, you could say, "We have all the
evidence we need: The woman's word." But that begs the question. You
are assuming that women tell the truth in order to prove that women
tell the truth.